I really, really hate smokers

[notyoueither]

I commended him for his decision. If you read over the thread, I said it was a good thing that he chose to do so, over being more promiscuous.

He was offended that I said the average gay partnership has many more partners then straight folks do, committed over equal periods. That says absolutely nothing about Asher and his current situation.



I respect the fact that you choose to make it your personal mission to point out my errors and to hold me to the task. I'm reminded of Ferris Bueller.

You'd be happier if you spent more time worrying about yourself then me.



That is true. I could have chosen to ignore the whole thing as I have many, many times in the past. Instead I figured that life is too short, and I ought to be treated the same way in which I treat others. I don't think that name calling and insisting that I am a liar ought to be tolerated, and if the Polytubbies find it offensive that I stand up for myself, then so be it.



When you are nitpicking, you should expect that your peripheral complaints have nothing to do with the substance of the argument.



Yet I coverted to Christianity and Catholicism.

Instead of being frusterated you should be thinking, how can I get through to Ben Kenobi?



That's fine. I consider you to be a friend of mine. I'm sorry you find me frusterating and difficult, but you must understand what it has cost me in my own life to take the course I have chosen. I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to change based on the arguments presented here.

Shi Huangdi, and a few others who still post here have had a huge effect on me and my life, because they were able to get through to me and convince me that the path I was on was the wrong one. Shi asked me if I was fulfilled when I attended a Catholic church.

I'm not an ogre, JRabbit. If you want to get to me, I suggest trying a bit of honey. I'm usually very amenable to kindness and compassion.

I've been kind and compassionate, Ben, but that well is only so deep.

You said

2. Gay people's concept of monogamy is one at a time. The statistics have shown that 'committed' partners (ie, been together more then 3 months), have on average about 10 partners in a year.

I asked 'what statistics?'

No answer.

I don't know if I care for the answer anymore, Ben. At a certain point I have to realise that you are not going to change your opinions on the subject no matter what people say to you. I have argued with you. Ming has. Many other people have put the case to you regarding rights and reasonable expectations of homosexuals.

You haven't listened, haven't modified your position one, single jot as far as I can tell. I can tell, because you continue to drop bombs like that quoted, but with a smile on your face (as someone else pointed out).

jrabbit is usually a fairly reasonable sort of fellow. Do you wonder why he feels as he does? Do you wonder why more and more people are beginning to feel like he does? I guess it is not reasonable to expect you to modify your opinions on the subject based on the years of threads and debates on the topic. Of course, it may not be reasonable for you to expect a welcome, or discussion from many here anymore either.

[notyoueither]

His question was whether I would accept the claim of the Muslim that he should have been informed about the pig gelatin.

I think he would have a claim there, as would a vegetarian who had to do the same with animal products.

And you are completely out in left field as regards to employer obligations and employee rights.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it, but you are in la la land.

[Sirotnikov]

I commended him for his decision. If you read over the thread, I said it was a good thing that he chose to do so, over being more promiscuous.

I'm not sure it's really your place to commend him for life style choices.

I haven't read the original, but what you claim to have said comes off extremely condescending and I understand how a person like Asher would get in a fit over this, being limited in response by the site's rules.

It doesn't matter that monogamy is indeed less frequent among gays, and it doesn't matter you really do think Asher's monogamy is good. The way you say it, and the fact is is coming from you, makes it sound like you are commending him for 'not raping all those small innocent children'.


I do think Asher is eventually wrong.
He dishes out worse stuff - direct or subtle, and should be able to control himself.


Also this site's moderation has indeed been free-speech tolerant, even for extreme views. There was a really oddball Russian poster recently that addressed me in Russian and frankly accused me of evil Jew world domination plans. He did so very politely and without specifically libeling me, and there was no moderator action.

I was furious at first. This is the first time I meet such flagrant soul-deep anti-semitic conviction. But later I came to my senses. He wasn't a hateful person. Simply very deeply misinformed. He has done me no wrong, and I had to accept he will continue to have his opinions. He can't be banned for them, as long as he doesn't threaten me.

[Ben Kenobi]

I asked 'what statistics?'

Well I am sorry. I missed your earlier reply.

I don't know if I care for the answer anymore, Ben. At a certain point I have to realise that you are not going to change your opinions on the subject no matter what people say to you. I have argued with you. Ming has. Many other people have put the case to you regarding rights and reasonable expectations of homosexuals.

I don't see what that has to do with this issue at all. People have rights that have nothing to do with who they sleep with and why.

The only thing I argue is that marriage is not one of them. This is not an issue of "gay people do not deserve human rights", but rather, "what is a human right, and why?"

I'd appreciate it if you understood that is what I am saying. The disagreement isn't over whether gay people are deserving, etc, but it's over what is a right? It's a much more fundamental disagreement.

To me the issue of whether gay people have 15 partners or 1 is irrelevant to the rights issue.

You haven't listened, haven't modified your position one, sinlge jot as far as I can tell. I can tell, because you continue to drop bombs like that quoted, but with a smile on your face (as someone else pointed out).

You think that makes me happy? I find it sad.

jrabbit is usually a fairly reasonable sort of fellow. Do you wonder why he feels as he does? Do you wonder why more and more people are beginning to feel like he does? I guess it is not reasonable to expect you to modify your opinions on the subject based on the years of threads and debates on the topic.

So I'm not welcome here because I disagree on this one issue? Discourse to me doesn't rely on one person being right and the other person being wrong, or the whole thesis/antithesis/synthesis.

I didn't take you for a Hegelian, and that rather surprises me, NYE.

I think people can discuss an issue come to opposite conclusions, and still have a productive discussion, in that the issue is better understood.

I don't think less of anybody that they disagree with me, and I only expect that the same courtesy be applied.

Now, that being said, this is not what the thread was about. I will send you a pm if you are really interested in this question.

[Sirotnikov]

NYE, regarding gay monogamy - I have recently read an Israeli thread on a half related issue.
It talked about gay people's blood donations, and the way they are treated in Israel.

Eventually the issue of gay people's monogamy came up, and was actually admitted as a problem by representatives of the GLBT organizations in Israel, who agreed it is low, especially among younger gay people. I also read that this was not unique to Israel.

[Ben Kenobi]

I haven't read the original, but what you claim to have said comes off extremely condescending and I understand how a person like Asher would get in a fit over this, being limited in response by the site's rules.

Well, again I am sorry if I came off that way.

Health wise, he'll be far better off.

[notyoueither]

I don't see what that has to do with this issue at all. People have rights that have nothing to do with who they sleep with and why.

Sexuality is a fundamental human right every bit as much as freedom of conscience and religion are.

The only thing I argue is that marriage is not one of them. This is not an issue of "gay people do not deserve human rights", but rather, "what is a human right, and why?"

I'd appreciate it if you understood that is what I am saying. The disagreement isn't over whether gay people are deserving, etc, but it's over what is a right? It's a much more fundamental disagreement.

To me the issue of whether gay people have 15 partners or 1 is irrelevant to the rights issue.

No, you lie.

The relevant issue to you is that homosexuality is a sin and it is shunned in your dogma. You cannot tolerate the thought that the majority of us in our society don't agree that your dogmatic morality should affect the lives of people who are not religious, let alone Christian or Catholic.

'We' would appreciate if you understood what 'we' are saying. As far as rules to govern society are concerned, please take your dogma for a long walk off a short pier, and I for one am tired of explaining this to you.

You think that makes me happy? I find it sad.


So I'm not welcome here because I disagree on this one issue? Discourse to me doesn't rely on one person being right and the other person being wrong, or the whole thesis/antithesis/synthesis.

I didn't take you for a Hegelian, and that rather surprises me, NYE.

I think people can discuss an issue come to opposite conclusions, and still have a productive discussion, in that the issue is better understood.

I don't think less of anybody that they disagree with me, and I only expect that the same courtesy be applied.

Now, that being said, this is not what the thread was about. I will send you a pm if you are really interested in this question.

I'm rapidly proceeding past caring, Ben.

You are as welcome as some redneck who insists on defining issues based on colour of skin, gender, or religious choice. This is my opinion, of course. I just don't think you should be surprised by the declining number of people willing to take you seriously, or others who begin to be hostile.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sexuality is a fundamental human right every bit as much as freedom of conscience and religion are.

What do you mean by 'sexuality'?

I would disagree with a freedom of sexual expression. We do not have the right to do what we want whenever we want, however we want.

The relevant issue to you is that homosexuality is a sin and it is shunned in your dogma.

Nothing about marriage? "Each husband his own wife, and each wife her own husband?"

Marriage cares about who you sleep with and when, unlike human rights.

You cannot tolerate the thought that the majority of us in our society don't agree that your dogmatic morality should affect the lives of people who are not religious, let alone Christian or Catholic.

Tolerate, means that you put up with something to which you disagree. I assure you that I am tolerating those who see marriage as a right that is doled out by the state.

If you ask whether I approve this thought, no I don't approve of it at all. Approval is not the same as toleration.

As far as rules to govern society are concerned, please take your dogma for a long walk off a short pier, and I for one am tired of explaining this to you.

I have every right to be here as you do. I disagree with you but hell, I think you should have the right to tell me to piss off.

You are as welcome as some redneck who insists on defining issues based on colour of skin, gender, or religious choice. This is my opinion, of course. I just don't think you should be surprised by the declining number of people willing to take you seriously, or others who begin to be hostile.

I'm surprised by poly being hostile?

No, I'm only surprised by those who say just the opposite.

[notyoueither]

What do you mean by 'sexuality'?

I would disagree with a freedom of sexual expression. We do not have the right to do what we want whenever we want, however we want.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sexuality?view=uk

sexuality
noun (pl. sexualities) 1 capacity for sexual feelings. 2 a person’s sexual orientation or preference

Nobody is talking about ****ing on your front lawn, Ben. Nevermind that they not use the missionary position.

Nothing about marriage? "Each husband his own wife, and each wife her own husband?"

Marriage cares about who you sleep with and when, unlike human rights.

Yeah, when darkies want to marry white trash, we should have a say in that, right, Ben?

Your views are the same old ****, just warmed over in microwavable form. Bigotry keeping up with the times.

Marriage does not care about anything. I assure you.

People care about marriage and state sanctions, encouragement, obligations, and rights for living arrangements. There is a difference. I am not going to get into them with you, one more time, though.

Tolerate, means that you put up with something to which you disagree. I assure you that I am tolerating those who see marriage as a right that is doled out by the state.

If you ask whether I approve this thought, no I don't approve of it at all. Approval is not the same as toleration.

Views perfectly in tune with thoughts in Mississippi in 1890 and 1950, I am sure.

I have every right to be here as you do. I disagree with you but hell, I think you should have the right to tell me to piss off.

Yes, you do. You have a right to exist. I will avail myself of the right to tell you to piss off though.

I'm surprised by poly being hostile?

No, I'm only surprised by those who say just the opposite.

You might pay heed to who is becoming hostile.

I've got no more time for a bigot who has demonstrated nothing but a determination to remain a bigot over the course of years. Period. Point blank.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nobody is talking about ****ing on your front lawn, Ben. Nevermind that they not use the missionary position.

I'm trying to understand your position. It makes no sense to me.

1. You talk about a 'right' to sexuality, or as you've defined it a 'right to a sexual orientation.'

I presume you are arguing that you have a right to express your sexual orientation. How do you define sexual orientation? Is pedophilia an orientation?

Yeah, when darkies want to marry white trash, we should have a say in that, right, Ben?

Sure. We should permit it and issue a marriage license. That's intervention. Are you saying that the state should refrain from issuing marriage licenses?

Your views are the same old ****, just warmed over in microwavable form. Bigotry keeping up with the times.

Marriage cares about who you sleep with, I don't see what's so hard to understand. It seems common sense to me. Are you saying that marriage shouldn't care who you sleep with?

Marriage does not care about anything. I assure you.

Then why am I not permitted to marry my sister, if I should have one?

People care about marriage and state sanctions, encouragement, obligations, and rights for living arrangements. There is a difference. I am not going to get into them with you, one more time, though.

I didn't say what people cared about. I said what marriage cares about. Marriage obviously cares about who you sleep with. That's the whole purpose of the institution, and why we have regulations surrounding whom you can marry, and when.

Views perfectly in tune with thoughts in Mississippi in 1890 and 1950, I am sure.

So are you saying I'm tolerant? That's all I was after. If you tolerate something that implies you disapprove.

Yes, you do. You have a right to exist. I will avail myself of the right to tell you to piss off though.

Good! That's what the free world is all about. The ability to tell each other to piss off.

You might pay heed to who is becoming hostile.

I've got no more time for a bigot who has demonstrated nothing but a determination to remain a bigot over the course of years. Period. Point blank.

I don't see why you are accusing me of being racist towards black people. Have I praised Byrd or the KKK? I mean really.

[notyoueither]

Ben, I am not going to debate marriage with you one more time. Nor am I going to discuss an apparent thickness, oblivious to the parallels in cases regarding human rights.

It would be as large a waste of time as it was the first and twentieth time.

You've demonstrated your bigotry on the subject in a complete fashion. Congratulations.

I'll stick to the piss off part, thanks.

[Monk]

Hey again, Ben Kenobi!

'His question was whether I would accept the claim of the Muslim that he should have been informed about the pig gelatin.'

No, rather my question was whether a Muslim should have a right to refuse to sell important medicine that's wrapped in a certain way just because he wasn't informed this could possibly be expected of him.

Do keep in mind people hiring other people aren't supposed to ask potential employees what religion they are. They're supposed to assume that if I'm applying for a job, I know what's expected of me, and if I want special treatment due to my personal beliefs, that's something I request before and not after we sign the contract.

And that's the point I'm making - that I can't see any difference to this hypothetical Muslim who wasn't explicitly warned and a Christian who won't hand out a morning-after pill. And now I'm wondering if you can?

[Monk]

I presume you are arguing that you have a right to express your sexual orientation. How do you define sexual orientation? Is pedophilia an orientation?

Not really directed to me, but - it's not a matter of expressing a sexual orientation as much as a matter of getting it legally recognised on par with others. I don't think anybody is arguing anybody should be allowed to have sex in your front yard (although I really wouldn't care myself) or commit rape or anything of the sort.

Marriage cares about who you sleep with, I don't see what's so hard to understand. It seems common sense to me. Are you saying that marriage shouldn't care who you sleep with?

That's actually my view. Why not? Or are you saying that marriage is wrong for somebody who's too old or medically impaired somehow so they can't have sex and/or children?

[Nikolai]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This is how it has been historically, and there is no reason to change that. That does not mean that homosexual persons should not be able to made a similar contract. I don't know for Ben, but this is my view. In Norway, we have had marriage for heterosexuals and a similar arrangement for homosexuals called partnership. Two different ways to live your life, two different laws to regulate them. Same rights and duties though. It worked well. Then some people found out that not having these laws merged was oppressive and excluding. Well, it wasn't. But with the new law we got from new year, the Church of Norway is under pressure to change its marriage practice. It's a pressure on the right of religion and beliefs. But what's worst: People in partnerships can choose if they want to remain in a partnership or convert to the new marriage law. People married under the old law has no such option. If that is not oppressive and excluding, I don't know what is...

[Ben Kenobi]

Not really directed to me, but - it's not a matter of expressing a sexual orientation as much as a matter of getting it legally recognised on par with others.

Which is why I raised my question as to what exactly constitutes a 'sexual orientation', I realise that the purpose is to grant rights to certain behaviours, but before we can discuss whether this should happen we should have an idea as to what 'sexual orientation' precisely can be defined.

I don't think anybody is arguing anybody should be allowed to have sex in your front yard (although I really wouldn't care myself) or commit rape or anything of the sort.

If we define it as a certain class of sexual attraction, then I cannot see how you can exclude, say pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

That's actually my view. Why not? Or are you saying that marriage is wrong for somebody who's too old or medically impaired somehow so they can't have sex and/or children?

Why is it necessary to represent non-sexual relationships as marriage? If we go this route, then why can't two roomates marry since they share a living space. Marriage generally has been recognised as an exclusive sexual relationship between a man and a women other then the last few years. If we get away from the sex component, then I don't see how you can define 'marriage' as a sexual relationship at all.